The most frequently used term in politics since Armenia gained independence in 1991 has been "regime change." Consistent with a simplistic concept, political parties exclusively struggle for political power, whose objective and hot season are elections.

As we can see, the "goal" is technical: to come to power at any cost or, in the worst case, win a seat in the parliament to start political trade with the government in order to enjoy economic and material benefits. Apart from the struggle for power, the political parties have no other content. Meanwhile, the range of functions of political power is actually quite wide. For example, how does this or that political party:

• see the future of Armenia,
• evaluate the external environment and the challenges and opportunities arising from it,
• envisage the outcome of the Artsakh conflict,
• consider the necessity of resuming communications of geopolitical and strategic importance,
• view what kind of society it wants to build,
• take into consideration what personnel policy it is going to implement, etc.?

The questions might be continued. The issue seems to be clear: the political units aspiring for political power present their vision on similar issues, allowing the formation of political thought and debate platforms. In this way, a lively political process will take place, voters will clearly decide what they are going to the elections for, who they will vote for, and why.

We neither witnessed such a process since independence in 1991, nor after the 2020 war. What did we get as a result? Nothing but a situation where the main, perhaps the only topic of the "political debate" is the search for the nation’s culprits and "traitors," without a word about the need to solve the current situation.

Moreover, it leads to acts of blaming each other and dividing the nation, joined by a large, miscellaneous mass of the public, as well as "fake farms" on social networks.  Eventually, the so-called debate goes beyond the boundaries of civilized communication, sometimes taking on self-destructive tones and vocabulary.

Perhaps, the sophisticated civil society, concerned about our existential situation, has failed to make enough efforts to settle the problems through public outreach, to foster an enabling environment for effective multisectoral engagement, to establish an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and solidarity in the country for every walk of life, and to render the activities of the political parties viable based on them. The interest of the state to create good prerequisites for the formation of a responsible governance system in the Republic of Armenia is also of paramount importance.

Experience suggests that even if one political unit, as a model, succeeds in coming up with coordinated proposals and an appropriate team, and achieves an impressive result, the picture can change. It will push others to use their abilities, and mental and moral potential and, thus, lay the foundation of a new tradition. Let's hope that a successful attempt at such an initiative will be made during the Yerevan City Council elections.  Otherwise, we will have to be stuck in the web of hopelessness for a long time. Like today.